Project Reality Forums

Agemman wrote:True story. I remember some round during C9 when Mahis got his hands on a SVD. Holy crapping K/D that round.

where is that fucker anyway?

Curry.

Curry-Chicken wrote:where is that fucker anyway?

Curry.

AFAIK his computer fried and he never got the time to buy a new one.

I agree with everything you said except the L85 part.

Brainlaag wrote:AFAIK his computer fried and he never got the time to buy a new one.

He fried his computer then bought booze for the money that was going to be the new computer

Agemman wrote:He fried his computer then bought booze for the money that was going to be the new computer

Damn Finnish winters .

Brainlaag wrote:Damn Finnish winters .

Whatcha mean? It's been only -39,2 celcius so far

I used to adore scopes. Then my arrogance took an arrow to the knee and I learned how having peripheral vision improved my situational awareness. On top of that killing people at range is my least favourite way of doing things. Volume of fire to pin or threaten the enemy at range is only helpful if you're moving in to kill him. I like to get in close and CQB them, otherwise its just a waste of time in my opinion. Stand off firefights at excess range are indecisive in my opinion unless you're MEC and sniper pwning them with that glorious G3.

In particular INS favors the close in and kill method. I'd never assault a cache building with a scoped rifle. Medium to short ranged infantry combat is where things are decided. Everything else is just foreplay. If you aren't following your foreplay on to a CQB assault then it just becomes masturbation.

PFunk wrote:I used to adore scopes. Then my arrogance took an arrow to the knee and I learned how having peripheral vision improved my situational awareness. On top of that killing people at range is my least favourite way of doing things. Volume of fire to pin or threaten the enemy at range is only helpful if you're moving in to kill him. I like to get in close and CQB them, otherwise its just a waste of time in my opinion. Stand off firefights at excess range are indecisive in my opinion unless you're MEC and sniper pwning them with that glorious G3.

In particular INS favors the close in and kill method. I'd never assault a cache building with a scoped rifle. Medium to short ranged infantry combat is where things are decided. Everything else is just foreplay. If you aren't following your foreplay on to a CQB assault then it just becomes masturbation.

It really sucks when you reload that shotgun so many times, but nothing comes out. Been there done that...

I dont care how many times people will say this.

I think iron sights and red dots have much better deviation. Though i still prefer scopes for some reason.

PFunk wrote:I used to adore scopes. Then my arrogance took an arrow to the knee and I learned how having peripheral vision improved my situational awareness. On top of that killing people at range is my least favourite way of doing things. Volume of fire to pin or threaten the enemy at range is only helpful if you're moving in to kill him. I like to get in close and CQB them, otherwise its just a waste of time in my opinion. Stand off firefights at excess range are indecisive in my opinion unless you're MEC and sniper pwning them with that glorious G3.

In particular INS favors the close in and kill method. I'd never assault a cache building with a scoped rifle. Medium to short ranged infantry combat is where things are decided. Everything else is just foreplay. If you aren't following your foreplay on to a CQB assault then it just becomes masturbation.

pretty much what i concluded after playing a lot of pr. long range firefights with 4x rifles didn't give me anything, and flanking in close combat was the most fun.

I generally dont use scopes, except on Kashan and maps alike. Even then, if i know that some of my time will be spent in the bunkers, i am choosing IS. As a SL, i often take scope for easier target ID, nothing else.

For AR, i osten take the scoped variant because you are stationary anyway and you can focus better on the the area you are covering, given that rest of the squad is watching your back and sides.

Nobody can realy decide which is better becouse both have diffrent propose scope for longer range and reddot/reflex for close combat, so in my SQ is always mix: Like: SL+Medic+RS with noscope gun, and AR+Granadier+rifelman with scopes. With that placment we can easy devide sq into 2 fire teams, infiltarating and supporting teams. And at the end selection always depend of the map.

Ca6e wrote:Nobody can realy decide which is better becouse both have diffrent propose scope for longer range and reddot/reflex for close combat, so in my SQ is always mix: Like: SL+Medic+RS with noscope gun, and AR+Granadier+rifelman with scopes. With that placment we can easy devide sq into 2 fire teams, infiltarating and supporting teams. And at the end selection always depend of the map.

Most fights in PR are below 150 meters. At that range you can efficiently shoot down people without a scope. At ranges further than that you can avoid the enemy fire in most cases and flank to get closer. Therefore it is better to equip pretty much everyone without scopes (exception being AR pretty much). Hell, I've had my squadmates using irons and still shoot down snipers at the end of the viewdistance. It is not that hard. Of course flat maps such as Kashan requires a bit more mx of scopes and irons.

There's 2 choices. Take ironsights Assault weapon or take marksman/sniper. The 4x inbetween option is in my opinion rendered invalid.
Thing is, you can shoot people at range with a 4x but it gets really really hard up close. With ironsights you can do both and you might need to get used to it but eventually you can shoot people at range with reflex/ironsights pretty well.

my view on it is, if the target is that far that you need a scope to hit him, theres no point even trying because he will just get revived.

just use what u think is best for the current situation

What a naive bunch of ironsight suckers we have here today...

Scope, all day, every day. Ironsights offer me no advantage. Scope does not hinder in CQC if you know to aim at openings and scan through the scope while moving. I'll down an irons user before he can ready his weapon because I've simply already got my weapon up. Taking out targets at 300m is a 2 shot ordeal. 300m+ is nearly as easy, at least 4 times more accurate than your fire in any case. Don't you people know how to cause mayhem from more than 300m? Some of the best moments I've had are firing across a field teaching my squad how to use ACOG markings to hit accurately at over 400m while another squad closed in. I know how to pump out the rounds when suppression is needed, and still get more hits closer to the target than fellow irons users, simply due to the amplification of the target, making it easier to keep aim on while spewing out bullets.

ACOG STRONG.

Celestial1 wrote:What a naive bunch of ironsight suckers we have here today...

Scope, all day, every day. Ironsights offer me no advantage. Scope does not hinder in CQC if you know to aim at openings and scan through the scope while moving. I'll down an irons user before he can ready his weapon because I've simply already got my weapon up. Taking out targets at 300m is a 2 shot ordeal. 300m+ is nearly as easy, at least 4 times more accurate than your fire in any case. Don't you people know how to cause mayhem from more than 300m? Some of the best moments I've had are firing across a field teaching my squad how to use ACOG markings to hit accurately at over 400m while another squad closed in. I know how to pump out the rounds when suppression is needed, and still get more hits closer to the target than fellow irons users, simply due to the amplification of the target, making it easier to keep aim on while spewing out bullets.

ACOG STRONG.

So you don't find the fact that you either gotta hipfire or look through an extremely large and magnified aperture in CQC annoying? You don't know that there's this thing called an "opinion" and that yours isn't better than anyone else's?

omfg12333 wrote:So you don't find the fact that you either gotta hipfire or look through an extremely large and magnified aperture in CQC annoying? You don't know that there's this thing called an "opinion" and that yours isn't better than anyone else's?

I would assume that you'll have a mix of scopes and irons covering you, you don't have to kill everyone yourself. Besides, hipfiring is piss easy even if a bit unreliable with bursts.

Celestial1 wrote:What a naive bunch of ironsight suckers we have here today...

Scope, all day, every day. Ironsights offer me no advantage. Scope does not hinder in CQC if you know to aim at openings and scan through the scope while moving. I'll down an irons user before he can ready his weapon because I've simply already got my weapon up. Taking out targets at 300m is a 2 shot ordeal. 300m+ is nearly as easy, at least 4 times more accurate than your fire in any case. Don't you people know how to cause mayhem from more than 300m? Some of the best moments I've had are firing across a field teaching my squad how to use ACOG markings to hit accurately at over 400m while another squad closed in. I know how to pump out the rounds when suppression is needed, and still get more hits closer to the target than fellow irons users, simply due to the amplification of the target, making it easier to keep aim on while spewing out bullets.

ACOG STRONG.

I'll challenge you every day.

Back to the point, it's not hard to kill someone at distance but to keep him from getting revived. Besides we were not talking about long range engagements as most FFs don't go over 300m in PR. In these scenarios you are fairly better equipped with a reflex/ iron sight. One AR, or marksman is enough to keep them heads down while you move in to finish them off for good.